The "Meister Print"

An Alleged Human Sandal Print from Utah

According to Dr. Melvin Cook (1970), a local rockhound named
William J. Meister was hunting for trilobite fossils along a hillside
near Antelope Springs, Utah in 1968 when he broke open a slab
and discovered a curious oblong marking that he
took for a human sandal print. This was quite surprising, since
the rock at this locality is identified as the middle Cambrian
Wheeler Formation--over 500 million years old.

The supposed print measured approximately 10 1/2
inches by 3 1/2 inches, and occurred on both sides of the
slab (with opposite relief). The specimen included what
Meister took as a heel demarcation, as well as at least two small
trilobites (extinct, superficially crab-like arthropods).

The "Meister Print". Photo provided by Clifford Burdick, 1982.
Arrow points to one of the trilobites in the specimen.

Close-up of the "heel" line of the specimen, showing
the crack line extending beyond the indentation on
the left side of the specimen.

The specimen does contain at least two real trilobites (which are
abundant in the outcrops around Antelope Springs), but
the supposed sandal print does not stand up to close scrutiny.
The overall shape is seen to consist of a spall pattern in a
concretion-like slab, similar to many others in the area.
There is no evidence that it was ever part of a striding
sequence, nor that it was ever on an exposed
bedding plane, as real prints would be. The "print" is very
shallow and shows no sign of pressure deformation or foot
movement at its margin. However, on one side of the print,
extending to the side of the supposed toe end is a rim or lip
that is typical of similar concretions from the area, but
which is incompatible in position and form to be a pressure
ridge. Also, of the two halves of rock, the side that has
the heel indented shows raised relief at the toe end, and
vice versa, whereas in a real print one should show impression
or raised relief throughout each half.

The supposed "heel" demarcation is actually a crack that runs
beyond the boundary of the supposed print. It is best
seen on the far left side as one views the print in the photograph
herein. The slight relief difference at this point is due
to slight movement along the crack line
(Conrad, 1981 ; Stokes, 1986).

Similar
concretionary shapes and spall patterns are abundant
in the Wheeler formation, as are slabs showing concentric
oval shapes of varying color, sometimes with stair-step
like relief. Several other of these oblong features have also
been interpreted as possible human prints (Cook, 1970),
but are even less convincing than the Meister specimen
(Conrad, 1981). None occur in striding trails or
otherwise meet the scientific criteria by which genuine
human prints are reliably identified. The geochemical
processes such as solution penetrations, spalling, and
weathering which form such features in fissile rocks of the Wheeler
formation was discussed in considerable detail by Stokes (1986).

Several such "pseudo-prints" from Antelope Springs were
sent to me in the early 1980's by creationist biologist
Ernest Booth. One showed both an ovoid spall pattern similar
to the Meister print, and another a color-distinct ovoid
pattern without topographic relief. Booth expressed dismay
that fellow creationists had not explained that such
superficially print-like features were abundant at the site, and
were products of geological phenomena and not real prints
(Booth, 1982).

Some creationists have noted that the find was "confirmed"
by "Dr. Cook." However, Dr. Cook was a metallurgist with
little paleontological experience or knowledge. In his own
report on the find Cook states, "...I am by no means an authority
on fossils and footprints." He adds that the print seems to
"speak for itself". However, upon careful inspection the
evidence does not support Cook's conclusions.

In short, the trilobites in the specimen are real
enough, but the "print" itself appears to be due solely to
inorganic, geologic phenomena. After mainstream
rebuttals of this find were published in the 1980's (Conrad,
1981; Stokes, 1986; Strahler, 1987), only a few creationists
continued to suggest this was a real print, while most
fromer advocates of the specimen have quietly
abandoned the case.